Previous studies show that optimized arrays generated using the ‘Compare R’ method have significantly better resolution than conventional arrays. This method determines the optimum set of arrays by calculating the change in the model resolution for all the viable arrays (comprehensive data set) for a survey line. The number of possible arrays increases with the fourth power of the number of electrodes. The optimization method faces practical limitations for lines with more than 60 electrodes where the number of possible arrays exceeds a million. Several techniques are examined that can be used for lines with more than 100 electrodes. Recent improvements in the computer GPU reduces the calculation time by a factor of 5. The calculation time can be further reduced by half by using the fact that arrays that are symmetrical about the center of the line produce identical changes in the model resolution values. The calculation time is reduced by another hundred times by using a subset of the comprehensive data set consisting of only symmetrical arrays. Tests with synthetic models show that optimized arrays derived from this subset produce inversion models with differences of less than 10% from those derived using the full comprehensive data set.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Blome, M., Maurer, H. and Greenhalgh, S.
    [2011] Geoelectric experimental design — Efficient acquisition and exploitation of complete pole-bipole data sets. Geophysics, 76, F15–F26.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Carpenter, E.W. and Habberjam, G.M.
    [1956] A tri-potential method of resistivity prospecting. Geophysics, 11, 455–469.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Loke, M.H. and Barker, R.D.
    [1996] Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections using a quasi-Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting, 44, 131–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Loke, M.H., Acworth, I. and Dahlin, T.
    [2003] A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics, 34, 182–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Loke, M.H., Wilkinson, P. and Chambers, J.
    [2010] Parallel computation of optimized arrays for 2-D electrical imaging. Geophysical Journal International, 183, 1202–1315.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Loke, M.H., Chambers, J.E., Rucker, D.F., Kuras, O. and Wilkinson, P.B.
    [2013] Recent developments in the direct-current geoelectrical imaging method. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 95, 135–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Stummer, P., Maurer, H. and Green, A.
    [2004] Experimental design: Electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information. Geophysics, 69, 120–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Wilkinson, P.B., Meldrum, P.I., Chambers, J.E., Kuras, O. and OgilvyR.D.
    [2006] Improved strategies for the automatic selection of optimized sets of electrical resistivity tomography measurement configurations. Geophysical Journal International, 167, 1119–1126.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Wilkinson, P.B., Loke, M.H., Meldrum, P.I., Chambers, J.E, Kuras, O., Gunn, D.A. and Ogilvy, R.D.
    [2012] Practical aspects of applied optimised survey design for Electrical Resistivity Tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 189, 428–440.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Zhou, B. and Dahlin, T.
    [2003] Properties and effects of measurement errors on 2D resistivity imaging surveying. Near Surface Geophysics, 1, 105–117.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error